Cardiovascular
Diagnostics
Endocrinology
Health Insurance
Medical Devices
Mental Health
Nutrition
Oncology
Public Health
Sexual Health
It's fantastic! Cheap dildos in Sex Shop LoveToyLand.com!

Washington Times Opinion Piece, Editorial Discuss DOJ Nominee Johnsen

The Washington Times recently published an opinion piece and an editorial discussing President Obama"s nomination of Indiana University law professor Dawn Johnsen to head the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department. Summaries appear below. ~ Mickey Edwards/William Sessions, Washington Times: The Senate should "act expeditiously to approve" Johnsen"s nomination because "her views on the limits of presidential power are precisely what the Constitution envisions and conservatives have long championed," Edwards, vice president of the Aspen Institute and author of "Reclaiming Conservatism," and Sessions, a partner at the law firm Holland & Knight, write in a Times opinion piece. According to the authors, Johnsen "made her views clear" on the limits of presidential power when she joined a bipartisan group of lawyers that declared that the Office of Legal Counsel should promote "presidential adherence to the rule of law." Edwards and Sessions write that Johnsen is being criticized for "being blunt, unserious and critical of presidential policies." However, these attacks are unwarranted, they write, noting that in the legal profession, "a little blunt talk to a client -- in this case, the president of the United States -- might be required." Edwards and Sessions continue, "What is needed in the Office of Legal Counsel is a person with the constitutional understanding to know that even presidents with whose politics she agrees must obey both the Constitution and federal statutes and who has the gumption to say so, even if the advice won"t be well received" (Edwards/Sessions, Washington Times, 5/21).~ Washington Times: The editorial states that Johnsen "is so radical" that 31 Republican Indiana state senators on Monday sent a letter to Sens. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) and Dick Lugar (R-Ind.) asking them to oppose her confirmation. The Republican senators called Johnsen"s views supporting abortion rights "extremely radical" and said she often uses "harsh, sensationalizing rhetoric" in her writings on Supreme Court cases, the editorial states. According to the editorial, Johnsen"s "political advocacy shows a profound disregard for the courts" proper role" because she considers the courts "as making up just another political, policymaking branch of government, not as bodies restrained by the Constitution or existing laws." The editorial continues that Johnsen is "guilty" of "asking judges to impose their own policy preferences" in favor of abortion rights "against the dictates of existing constitutional law." The editorial concludes, "Someone with such contemptuous views of the Constitution should not be the Obama administration"s chief constitutional interpreter" (Washington Times, 5/21).
drugs without prescription

Six Words More Than Enough For Senate Battle

"Democrats and Republicans locked horns Friday over inclusion of medical comparative effectiveness study language in a draft health care overhaul measure, suggesting that majority plans to spend only eight days debating and amending the bill may be ambitious," CQ Politics reports. The head-to-head comparisons of medical treatments show how easily a seemingly small provision can become embroiled in major controversy, and demonstrate the potential for indefinite debate. Republicans raise the flag of rationing, saying comparative effectiveness research shouldn"t be used to deny care, while Democrats say they basically agree, but insist on looser language. The current legislative language at the center of the battle? The research "shall not be construed as mandates" (6/19).